Jeffrey A. Weill, Sr. v. Karla Watkins Bailey
227 So. 3d 931
| Miss. | 2017Background
- Karla Bailey, former court administrator to Hinds County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Weill, sued Judge Weill individually alleging libel and related torts based on language in a footnote of four February 10, 2015 orders and related public statements.
- The footnote stated Bailey had resigned after being reprimanded for improper ex parte communications with a public defender (Alison Kelly) and suggested Bailey added Kelly as counsel of record. Bailey alleged reputational and emotional harm.
- Judge Weill moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting judicial immunity among other defenses; the trial court denied the motion and ordered discovery. Judge Weill sought interlocutory appeal; the Supreme Court granted review.
- Bailey conceded claims based on earlier events were time-barred and limited her actionable claim to the February 2015 orders (and did not press the unacted-upon proposed second amended complaint quoting a newspaper).
- The Supreme Court limited its analysis to judicial immunity and whether the judge’s statements in the orders were protected judicial acts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Weill's motion to dismiss based on judicial immunity | Bailey: footnote statements in the orders are defamatory and not barred by immunity | Weill: entries were judicial acts within his jurisdiction and therefore immune from civil suit | Reversed: judge entitled to judicial immunity for statements in orders disposing of matters before him; dismissal required on that ground |
| Whether a judge loses immunity when allegedly acting in complete absence of jurisdiction | Bailey: statements about Bailey constituted acts in clear absence of jurisdiction and nonjudicial acts | Weill: immunity depends on jurisdiction over subject matter, not over the individual mentioned | Held: immunity applies because the judge had jurisdiction over the criminal matters before him when he entered the orders |
| Whether alleged malice removes judicial immunity | Bailey: malicious intent or irrelevance of remarks eliminates immunity | Weill: malice does not defeat judicial immunity for judicial acts | Held: malice does not defeat judicial immunity; relevance or alleged malice insufficient to remove protection |
| Whether there is a relevance exception to judicial immunity | Bailey: the footnote was irrelevant to the underlying motions, so immunity should not apply | Weill: no relevance exception; action judged by subject-matter jurisdiction test | Held: Court refused to recognize a relevance exception; inclusion of a factual finding referencing Bailey did not remove immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Loyacono v. Ellis, 571 So.2d 237 (Miss. 1990) (recognizing broad judicial immunity for judges of general jurisdiction and distinguishing excess of jurisdiction from complete absence)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (federal precedent holding judges immune for judicial acts even if in excess of jurisdiction)
- Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (1871) (foundational statement of absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts)
- Wheeler v. Stewart, 798 So.2d 386 (Miss. 2001) (Mississippi precedent applying the subject-matter jurisdiction test for judicial immunity)
- Mississippi Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Russell, 691 So.2d 929 (Miss. 1997) (noting disciplinary remedies exist outside civil liability for judicial misconduct)